There's a lot of debate within urbanist circles about whether or not supply alone can solve or at least mitigate housing affordability concerns. Richard Florida and others will say that, while beneficial, increasing supply isn't the be all end all. We need to be building affordable housing.

Edward Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko, and others have, on the other hand, argued that middle-income housing is a supply problem and that low-income housing is quite simply a demand-side problem, which could be solved through things like a housing voucher program.

In other words, the cost of housing isn't necessarily the problem, it's the low income levels. One of the benefits of supplementing people's incomes is that it empowers mobility. People can then move to where there are jobs, as opposed to being tied to a specific neighborhood or city.

But this debate is arguably just about the extent of the supply benefits. Intuitively, it makes sense to try and match new housing supply with demand and economic growth. But how far can that take us, particularly in high demand and high productivity cities?

Glaeser (Harvard) and Gyourko (Penn) have a relatively recent paper out called, The Economic Implications of Housing Supply, which looks at, among other things, the "implicit tax" imposed on development as a result of land use restrictions and other supply constraints.

Here are two excerpts:

We will argue that the rise in housing wealth is concentrated in the major coastal markets that have high prices relative to minimum production costs, and it is concentrated among the richest members of the older cohorts—that is, on those who already owned homes several decades ago, before binding constraints on new housing construction were imposed.

But in a democratic system where the rules for building and land use are largely determined by existing homeowners, development projects face a considerable disadvantage, especially since many of the potential beneficiaries of a new project do not have a place to live in the jurisdiction when possibilities for reducing regulation and expanding the supply of housing are debated.

If you're interested in this topic (and sufficiently nerdy), you can download a PDF copy of the paper here.

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash

I just discovered a new video series by TVO called, The Life-Sized City. It’s all about the “anatomy of the modern metropolis.” The first episode – which was released on Sep 13 – is on Medellin and is just under an hour long. I have a feeling that many of you will like this video series.

Whenever I watch videos like this, it makes me think that I should be starting a city building-focused vlog. I am a big fan of this format. I follow a handful of vloggers. And I think it could be a lot of fun. But sometimes you just have to say no.

For those of you who aren’t longtime readers, I would also like to point out that my good friend Alex Feldman wrote a guest post on this blog over 3 years ago following a trip to Medellin. It’s about what cities could learn from Medellin’s extraordinary turnaround. If you missed it, click here.

Cities are in vogue. And that has brought about buzzwords like urbanism, tactical urbanism, urbanist, and the list goes. But what exactly does it mean to be an urbanist?

If you look it up in the dictionary, you’ll likely get something along the lines of: someone who is a specialist in city planning. But I bet that there are many people out there who would self-identity as being an urbanist, but who would also not consider themselves specialists in the field.

The term has evolved to imply other things.

To this end, Scott Bonjukian (over at The Urbanist) recently wrote a good piece called, Why I call myself an urbanist. And in it he offered up this definition from the former mayor of Seattle, Michael McGinn:

“At the core, urbanists want more people living in cities, so they support more urban housing of all types. They prioritize walking, biking and transit, and support a high quality shared public realm. Parks, nightlife, theaters, transit and taxis can replace backyards, TV rooms and private cars. That way we can live well with less stuff, sprawl and pollution.

I’ll go a little further, and say urbanists prefer bottom up, granular, and seemingly chaotic innovation to top-down planning and mega-projects. Think the “Main Street” of neighborhoods with food trucks and lots of little stores, as opposed to tax-subsidized big box stores with legally required massive parking lots. Bike lanes, crosswalks and plazas instead of public garages and new highways.

Urbanists believe that mixing people and ideas creates wealth in a city. Why else would people choose to live so close to each other? Cities, therefore, should be open to people of every background, ethnicity, race and class to maximize the potential from our human capital.”

Scott added that most urbanists are probably also environmentalists on some level, and I can certainly see where he’s coming from with that. Regardless, I think the above definition is pretty apt.

But if you unpack some of the points, this definition raises some interesting questions. For instance, take the first line around supporting housing of all types. 

This could mean that even if you lived in an inner city transit-served single family neighborhood, but you didn’t support alternate housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units and/or laneway houses, then you might not be a true urbanist. You would rather homogeneity over a “chaotic” mix of housing types. And I can certainly think of inner city neighborhoods in Toronto that have fought against “monstrous” duplexes. 

So I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the above definition of urbanist. Do you agree or disagree? Is there anything you would add or take away? Are you an urbanist? Let us know in the comment section below.